Premier Liu Chao-shiuan (劉兆玄) has proposed measures to boost the real estate market, including an offer of NT$200 billion (US$6.2 billion) in preferential mortgage loans by the central bank and increasing interest rate subsidies to 0.625 percent. This, however, is not the right way to deal with the issue.
The mortgage policy is based on the assumption that many people want to buy a house but cannot borrow enough money from the bank or else fear that interest rates are too high and that they won’t be able to cope.
Yet if we examine a few figures, we will find that there is a great discrepancy between the actual situation in the real estate market and the Cabinet’s understanding of it.
Central bank statistics show that there is still more than NT$110 billion remaining in preferential mortgage loans and that only NT$300 million to NT$400 million of this is loaned out each month.
In addition, the total amount lent by commercial banks still falls far below the statutory 30 percent cap on a bank’s funds that are committed to housing loans.
In other words, banks still have sufficient cash for mortgage loans. This shows that the problem has nothing to do with the public being unable to borrow money.
Is the problem, then, that interest rates are so high that they prevent the public from buying a house?
The fact is that some banks have offered interest rates that are 0.25 percent lower than the government’s preferential mortgage loans, but there has still been only limited growth in such loans. So the answer is no.
The real problem is that house prices are too high and incomes too low. If incomes increased with house prices, then at least some people would be able to borrow, or consider borrowing, money to buy a house.
Yet, in reality, with increasing domestic inflation and soaring commodity prices — the Consumer Price Index rose from 4.97 percent in June to 5.92 percent in July — not only did incomes not rise, but inflation also caused real income to see the largest negative growth in 20 years.
The second-largest drop of the indexes in the Consumer Sentiment Index survey for last month — conducted by the Research Center for Taiwan Economic Development at National Central University — was the expectations index for household finances over the next six months.
If more and more people think incomes will not increase or may decrease in the next six months, how could they even consider buying a house?
The survey also showed that the Durable Consumer Goods Index, which is closely linked to the real estate industry, dropped by 1.5 points to 97.65 points last month. These are reflections of the public’s conservative approach to purchasing a house at this time.
The Cabinet has made a mistake in its economic measures that aim to revive the real estate market by failing to clearly understand the real problem. The problem is not the policy itself, but a complete misreading of the situation by the premier, his ministers and their advisers.
Lu Chun-wei is a research fellow in the Department of Finance and Economics at Taiwan Thinktank.
Translated by Ted Yang
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US